* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Natasha Harvey, History 1700, Section 72 Unit 3 Response
Tennessee in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution wikipedia , lookup
Virginia in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Opposition to the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
United States presidential election, 1860 wikipedia , lookup
Border states (American Civil War) wikipedia , lookup
Hampton Roads Conference wikipedia , lookup
Alabama in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Georgia in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Union (American Civil War) wikipedia , lookup
Lost Cause of the Confederacy wikipedia , lookup
South Carolina in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Mississippi in the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
United Kingdom and the American Civil War wikipedia , lookup
Natasha Harvey, History 1700, Section 72 Unit 3 Response Assignment- Expansion and Breakup of the Union I. II. Lecture: “Expansion, Divide, & the Breakup” Film: Slavery and the Making of America: Seeds of Destruction (Episode 3) Lecture & Film Question: “Why did the Union break up and go to war?” To even begin answering this question, you have to realize that America was going through what we call an “Age of Expansion.” This expansion was highlighted best in three different categories: economic, population growth and territorial expansion. The “Northwest Ordinance,” put in place by the Confederation Congress in 1787, established a land policy that was based on population; for a state, the requirement was 60,000 people and for a territory just 5,000. This land policy was needed because we were expanding westward so rapidly and attaining large amounts of land and there had to be some kind of system in place to classify the different regions. For example, the “Louisiana Purchase” of 1803, when Thomas Jefferson purchased an amount of land that doubled the size of the United States from the French or when Texas applied for Statehood and declared themselves independent from Mexico. In cases like these, where States were joining the Union, the biggest controversy was figuring out which states would enter the Union as “slave states,” and which would not. Texas entered the Union as the 15th slave State, which was infuriating to the North, as they were trying so hard to abolish slavery. The “Gold Rush” that took place in California from 1848-1849 increased their population by tens of thousands and as a result of this huge population increase; California was now to become a state as well. California entered the Union as a free state as outlined in the Compromise of 1850. It quickly became apparent that the expansion that the Union was experiencing was only creating a larger divide between the North and the South. The North at this time was doing well in industry, while the South was profiting hugely from agriculture, specifically from the growth of cotton. The South had developed a new way of processing cotton using the “cotton gin” which, in short, made this crop extremely profitable and efficient. The South needed slave labor to support the growth of this “cash crop” and because Congress abolished slave importation from Africa in 1808, the South had to turn to domestic slave trade. The domestic slave trade was at large and had its’ greatest expansion following the Louisiana Purchase. As time went on, this divide between the North and South was rapidly growing larger and larger. This is demonstrated by some of the “Anti-Slavery” movements made by the abolitionists who sought to rid the US not only of the spread of slavery, but also of slavery’s existence period. The abolitionists took it upon themselves to boycott products that came from slavery; they also gave speeches and held rallies as well as spread their ideas in Newspapers and other written materials. The abolitionists really angered the Southerners and things only got more heated between the two. This is demonstrated in 1854, when the “Act of Nebraska and Kansas” took place. This act opened up these states to slavery and an event called “Bleeding Kansas” took place. Kansas actually had a “Civil War” over slavery, which only makes it clearer that a peaceful resolution to the debate on slavery was not going to happen. As you can see, these events that I’ve mentioned leading up to the war, really played a significant role in the breakup of the Union, and in some cases, you could even say they were its’ direct cause. Westward expansion, for example, or the invention of the cotton gin was absolutely momentous in this time period. You could say this desire for slavery in the Southern States, and the distaste for slavery in the North, ultimately lead up to the breakup and to the war. III. Primary Document Readings A. Experience History, Volume 1: Chapter 15, page 405 “Dueling Documents: Slavery & Secession.” Two Questions: 1. How do Davis and Stephens differ in discussing the underlying causes of the Civil War? Alexander Stephens’ opinion on the underlying causes of the Civil War differs greatly from that of Jefferson Davis. Stephens basically says that African Slavery was the immediate cause for the Revolution. He goes on to say that the “New Government” is founded upon the belief that the white man is superior and that the natural role for the Negro is subordination. Jefferson, on the other hand, states that, “It was the offspring of sectional rivalry and political ambition. It would have manifested itself just as certainly if slavery had existed in all the States, or if there had not been a Negro in America…” (Experience history, pg. 405) Jefferson believed that slavery was not the cause, but merely an incident and refuses to acknowledge that slavery played a role in the cause of the Civil War in any form. 2. Do you think the date when each man delivered his opinion suggests a reason for the attitudes toward slavery and the reasons for secession? The date when these men delivered their opinions absolutely explains why their attitudes toward slavery and the secession were the way they were. When Stephens delivered his opinion, it was immediately following the secession of the Southern States from the Union. At that time, he thought he was helping to form a new slave-holding government that was separate from the Union, and he fully acknowledged the role of slavery in the Revolution. When Davis published his reflections on the causes of the war, it was after the war took place and the South had lost. This fact alone explains why he rejects the idea that slavery had anything to do with the war, he blames it rather on “sectional rivalry” and “political ambition.” This may be due to the fact that Davis did not want to admit that slavery could have caused the war, he was probably embarrassed that the South had lost the war and he no longer wanted to accept that slavery had something to do with it; especially because he was living in a free United States at the time he gave this opinion. He probably wanted to point to a more honorable cause for the war, rather than the promotion of human inequality. In any case, the time that these opinions were delivered, in my opinion, absolutely had an effect on what was said.